Court quashes GST confiscation order, stresses need for reasons in conveyance release decisions.

The court quashed the impugned order under section 130 of the GST Acts, directing the release of the conveyance and goods. It found the confiscation decision lacking proper application of mind and reasons, emphasizing the necessity of justifying such actions. The court highlighted the importance of recording reasons for such orders to ensure fairness and transparency, referencing the Supreme Court's precedent in Kranti Associates (P) Ltd. v. Masood Ahmed Khan.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the detention/confiscation order under section 130 of the GST Acts.
2. Whether the petitioner’s willingness to pay tax and penalty under section 129 of the GST Acts was ignored.
3. Validity of the confiscation notice and order without application of mind and reasons.
4. The impact of unsigned invoices on the confiscation decision.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Detention/Confiscation Order under Section 130 of the GST Acts:
The petitioner challenged the notice and detention/confiscation order issued by the third respondent under section 130 of the GST Acts. The vehicle was intercepted, and it was found that the e-way bills for three consignments were not generated. The goods for these three consignments were detained and subsequently confiscated. The petitioner argued that this action was without jurisdiction, arbitrary, and illegal, especially since they had agreed to pay the tax and penalty as per section 129 of the GST Acts.

2. Whether the Petitioner’s Willingness to Pay Tax and Penalty under Section 129 of the GST Acts was Ignored:
The petitioner contended that despite agreeing to pay the tax and penalty as stipulated under section 129 of the GST Acts, the respondents proceeded directly to confiscate the goods under section 130 without completing the procedure under section 129. The court noted that no detention order under section 129 was made, and the respondents directly resorted to section 130, which was not justified.

3. Validity of the Confiscation Notice and Order Without Application of Mind and Reasons:
The court observed that the impugned order was passed without assigning any reasons for the confiscation of goods and conveyance. Despite the explanations provided by the petitioner and one of the parties, Anjani Synthetics Limited, the third respondent did not consider these explanations. The court emphasized that orders of confiscation under section 130 have serious civil consequences and must be passed with proper application of mind and reasons. The order was found to be mechanical and without any application of mind, thus vitiating it.

4. The Impact of Unsigned Invoices on the Confiscation Decision:
The respondents argued that 14 invoices were doubtful as they did not bear the signatures of authorized persons, suggesting an intention to evade tax. However, the court noted that none of these 14 invoices related to the three parties whose goods were confiscated. The affidavit-in-reply filed by the third respondent was also found to be without proper application of mind, as it did not correlate with the actual confiscated goods. The court concluded that the goods relating to the three parties could not have been confiscated based on the unsigned invoices.

Conclusion:
The court quashed and set aside the impugned order dated 28.5.2019, directing the respondents to release the conveyance and the goods contained therein. The court highlighted the necessity of providing reasons for such orders, referencing the Supreme Court’s decision in Kranti Associates (P) Ltd. v. Masood Ahmed Khan, which mandates that quasi-judicial authorities must record reasons in support of their conclusions to ensure fairness and transparency in decision-making.

---